Elizabeth Warren, Senate candidate from Massachusetts, was recently asked if she considers Scott Brown, the incumbent Republican, to be honorable. Her somewhat ambiguous answer was "That's not a question for me." Does she mean that it is not her place to say? Or does she mean she wouldn't recognize honorable if she tripped over it?

Exactly who is Elizabeth Warren?

She is a law professor at Harvard. She was Obama's consumer czar and set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), fully expecting to become its first director. President Obama was forced to replace her because of opposition in the Senate to her extremist views. Ms. Warren returned to Massachusetts and is running against Scott Brown for senator from that state.

Professor Warren, speaking about Occupy Wall Street, claims, "I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do." She can also claim credit for inspiring President Obama's telltale gaffe "You didn't build that" (see Obama in context here).

One more thing: Elizabeth Warren is perhaps the whitest woman of color on the face of the earth.

The July 2012 issue of the Limbaugh Letter has an article on Ms. Warren titled "Dishonest Injun." She claims Cherokee ancestry based on family lore but without a scintilla of documented evidence. Certainly not enough evidence to, in her own words, "let people know about my Native American heritage in a national directory of law school personnel."

Boston attorney and pundit Wendy Murphy implies that Ms. Warren's academic pedigree (Ms. Warren went to 82nd-ranked Rutgers-Newark School of Law) would not normally be up to Harvard's exalted standards. Writing in the Quincy (MA) Patriot Ledger, Ms. Murphy said:

Warren ... knows that law professors far more qualified than she don't even apply for positions at Harvard because they know that being a genius is not enough. Academic pedigree matters more, and she didn't have the right credentials. By listing herself as a minority in a national directory of law school personnel she was effectively putting a glowing neon "pick me" sign next to her name for universities looking to increase their quotas on minority hires.

The Warren campaign put forward an undated newspaper article that showed that Elizabeth Warren's cousin contributed to the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, Oklahoma. The cousin had published a cookbook called Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek & Seminole. It turns out that five of the recipes were contributed by "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."

Curiouser and curiouser. Boston talk show host Howie Carr found that two of the "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee" recipes are similar -- almost identical -- to two recipes by NY Times syndicated columnist Chef Pierre Frainey. Follow the link and compare them yourself.

Ah, the dangers of verifiable claims. Doug Powers recommends, "Next time make it something that is unverifiable" and points to Ms. Warren's assertion that "I was the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey" as an example. There are other unverifiable assertions; Ms. Warren thrives on blowing her own horn -- see how good I am, see how unique I am. My favorite is "When I started law school here at Rutgers in 1973, I had never met a lawyer." She shoulda been so lucky.

High crimes and misdemeanors? Hardly -- more an interminable farce from Saturday Night Live. These things are fun to ridicule, but not disqualifying for public office. Most of us have analogous conceits, and we deal with them with self-deprecating humor. It is Elizabeth Warren's reaction that is illuminating. The dishonest Injun meme broke in late April, months ago. It is still going strong because Ms. Warren has not been able to put it behind her. When queried, she puts on her petulant professorial pout and stonewalls. Her honor has been impugned. As Joe Fitzgerald tells us in the Boston Herald, "[t]he heat of this political season is telling us much about the professor, and it isn't very flattering."

Professors, like doctors, are God-like creatures. Ms. Warren fervently believes she is smarter, better, more deserving than the rest of us. There is no need for self-deprecating humor. She has no flaws for which to apologize. Look her up in a thesaurus; patronizing, pedantic, plodding, ponderous, priggish, professorial.

Remind you of anybody? BHO?

If you don't like ObamaCare, it is because you don't understand ObamaCare, and if you were not so lazy, you could learn to understand and to love ObamaCare. Haven't we had enough of that dictatorial bully-pulpit approach?

Ms. Warren's background parallels Mr. Obama's in many ways.

As we have just seen, Mr. Obama and Ms. Warren are so damn smart that they get extremely upset when we, the dim-witted, are slow in comprehending their brilliance. Both Mr. Obama and Ms. Warren appear to be get-even as well as get-angry personalities.
Mr. Obama and Ms. Warren each have an imperative: a pursuit for a racial identity. In each case, the results of the search are conveyed in a very much less than verifiable manner.
Mr. Obama and Ms. Warren each have an extremely narrow life experience for governance; Mr. Obama as a community organizer and an academic, Ms. Warren as strictly an academic. Look at how well Mr. Obama's lack of experience has served us. Expect the same or worse from Ms. Warren.
Mr. Obama's and Ms. Warren's biggest and scariest convergence is not on personal attributes, but rather on ideology. Each is a left-wing zealot. Each is a one-percenter eager to redistribute your wealth to the ninety-nine percent.

America was once the land of opportunity, of individual achievement, of exceptionalism. America used to be a home that engendered pride of accomplishment, the dignity of strength, and the honor of morality.

When did all that change? We now seem to be a nation of dependents, a realm of serfs, a country of apologists. The trend in this direction started some time ago, but it took Barack Obama acting as a catalyst to dramatically speed up the process. Obama has brought down upon us a quasi-Marxist economy, a distribute-the-wealth philosophy, and a "you didn't build that" leftist ideology. As Mark Steyn so starkly puts it, we totter near "the last exit ramp before the death spiral."

She is a disgrace and I wish I could have the chance to tell her that publicly.

09-16-2012, 12:36 PM

Rockntractor

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmPat

"Honourable?" I nearly spit coffee through my nose.

She is a disgrace and I wish I could have the chance to tell her that publicly.

The fact that she is a disgrace needs to be kept at the forefront until the election.

09-16-2012, 01:27 PM

NJCardFan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockntractor

The fact that she is a disgrace needs to be kept at the forefront until the election.

That fact that she is barely leading per RCP is even worse.

09-16-2012, 01:35 PM

Rockntractor

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJCardFan

That fact that she is barely leading per RCP is even worse.

When people like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama etc.... get elected it should seriously worry us about the American people. These politicians are only symptoms of our disease, the real problem is much deeper and involves the way almost half of our voting population thinks.

09-16-2012, 01:36 PM

NJCardFan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockntractor

When people like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama etc.... get elected it should seriously worry us about the American people. These politicians are only symptoms of our disease, the real problem is much deeper and involves the way almost half of our voting population thinks.

It's lazy voters who simply vote by party and not who's running. This is how these people get elected.

09-16-2012, 02:46 PM

SaintLouieWoman

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJCardFan

It's lazy voters who simply vote by party and not who's running. This is how these people get elected.

It's also people who are lazy in that they only get their news from one or two sources, usually a lib newspaper and the MSM. They aren't intellectually curious enough to try to dig beyond the BS that's dished out to them. I know several people who brag that they're just not interested in public affairs or politics. A couple have the audacity to make fun of me for taking things seriously. That sheer stupidity infuriates me, but if I protest too much, I get the conservative right nut thing flung at me.

09-16-2012, 03:36 PM

Adam Wood

There is a very good reason why the Founders only wanted people who actually had a vested interest (meaning landowners who paid taxes) voting.

09-17-2012, 12:32 PM

Gina

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintLouieWoman

It's also people who are lazy in that they only get their news from one or two sources, usually a lib newspaper and the MSM. They aren't intellectually curious enough to try to dig beyond the BS that's dished out to them. I know several people who brag that they're just not interested in public affairs or politics. A couple have the audacity to make fun of me for taking things seriously. That sheer stupidity infuriates me, but if I protest too much, I get the conservative right nut thing flung at me.

The people who brag about that have no business voting. Adam Wood is absolutely right, only land owners and maybe people with jobs should vote, they pay for most of the stuff.